Corporations are the Culprit in Exploiting Honeypots

          An unfortunate consequence of a region possessing an abundance of a natural resource, refered to as a “honeypot,” is militaristic conflict. This conflict results from the opportunity that the honeypot creates for parties to capture its resources. Often, even though honeypots for nonrenewable resources exist in certain areas of the world, the resources are still scarce on a global scale, which makes their demand high for powerful, external parties. Critics of the honeypot theory have largely concentrated on conflict over resources between governments when dismissing the idea that abundance of a resource leads to conflict. They have explained that there has been a long peace globally between nations, and that when nations do go to war it is usually for social reasons, with the securance of natural resources being merely a supporting factor in the decision if it even is one at all. I do not oppose these critics’ stance on government involvement in conflict involving natural resources; however, their overview on the issue of abundance is incomplete. These critics have not addressed the real culprit in proliferating conflicts in regions with honeypots—corporations. Evidence of corporations’ role in heightening local conflict over resources is apparent in Chevron’s, the fourth largest petroleum supplier in the world, exploitation in Burma and Thailand, regions rich in natural gas and petroleum.

            Although I agree with the critics that governments are not the source of conflict over resources, the United States’ attitude towards corporations is problematic and related to the underlying issue of resource conflict. Throughout the past two centuries, the political and corporate realms have become increasingly intertwined. On a national level, corporations have gained prominent political influence through amplified lobbying efforts and campaign spending. According to a report released in 2009 by The True Cost of Chevron Network, Chevron has been among the all time largest corporate contributors to federal elections since 1990. In the recent election, Chevron spent over $3 million endorsing local candidates in Richmond, California, where their refinery exploded in 1999 and again 2012 (Think Progress). This type of campaign support and the overall strong influence of corporations in government have been supported legally. The United States’ doctrine of Corporate Personhood, which establishes that corporations have the same rights as individuals in the eyes of the law, has been upheld by numerous Supreme Court cases. These protections established for corporations by law relate to the disparity in the level of influence governments and corporations have over international resources. Unlike government officials who are elected, bound by their position’s legal restrictions, and responsible for maintaining the nation’s reputation, corporations are held to a low standard internationally. When conducting business internationally, American corporations, like Chevron, are required to only abide by the laws in the nations where they are operating. The issue with this requirement is that the countries where American corporations are extracting resources from are often lawless, with corrupt governments or nonexistent ones, which leaves American corporations without restrictions. Without legal bindings, these corporations are free to harm the environment and exploit local peoples in order to achieve their profit from the region’s honeypot.

Even without the influence of corporations, nations with an abundance of a nonrenewable resource are already in vulnerable situations. Michael Ross (2003) asserts the developing nations that have honeypots suffer from a “resource curse” as their resource abundance inhibits their economic and political development.  In Green Planet Blues (2010), Colin Kahl agrees with Ross as he identifies specific issues that regions that retain honeypots suffer from, all related to political instability. He explains that abundant resources create incentives for rebel groups to capture them, escalate the amount of labor and capital focused on solely the natural resource economic sector, and increase the likelihood of those nations developing corrupt, authoritarian governments.

This resource curse has been illustrated in Burma and Thailand, regions rich in natural gas and oil. Demonstrating the effects of the resource curse, these countries have been vulnerable, developing states throughout the past few decades as their governments have been overturned by military coups, which also control most of the region’s natural resources. A prevailing rebellion in the early 1990s left the Burmese military, which has a violent and dictatorial reputation, in control of Burma, resulting in local conflict. However, the severity of this conflict was greatly exaggerated by the involvement of corporations. According to the True Cost of Chevron Network report, even with the knowledge of the Burmese military’s human rights abuses and dominance in Burma, Chevron signed a contract with them to help them in developing offshore natural gas fields in Thailand. Under the instruction of Chevron, the Burmese military continued to exploit forced laborers, rape women, compulsorily relocate villages, and silence local protesters through murder. Chevron supervised these extreme human rights abuses all in the name of securing profit from natural resources, which greatly exaggerated the preexisting conflict.

Unbeknown from its name, the honeypot isn’t always a gift—it’s a danger. An abundance of natural resources accelerates local conflict and leaves developing nations vulnerable to corporate exploitation. Greedy corporations are the greatest perpetrators in enlarging conflict in developing nations over resources. We need to put an end to the conflict and abuses that stem from the desire to obtain natural resources. To end exploitation by corporations, they must be held accountable for their abuses of power in the same degree that governments hold one another responsible. To end local conflict and secure the safety of the local peoples, honeypots must be regulated, perhaps by an international body. Honeypots should not be a curse, but they are currently the source of conflict. Action is needed to put an end to regional conflict over resources.

Sources:

http://truecostofchevron.com/2009-alternative-annual-report.pdf

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/11/05/3589294/chevron-lost-richmond-elections/